What's with red rear turn signal?
 

I've noticed that Honda, and some other mfg'rs. are going
with the Detroit look and using red rear turn signals
instead of the amber color used for years. Any official
word on what's going on? I don't like it because amber
seems to do a better job of catching attention day and night.

Dave,

Re: What's with red rear turn signal?
 

Dave Boland wrote:
> I've noticed that Honda, and some other mfg'rs. are going with the
> Detroit look and using red rear turn signals instead of the amber color
> used for years. Any official word on what's going on? I don't like it
> because amber seems to do a better job of catching attention day and night.
>
> Dave,
>
red turn signals are one of the most dangerous retrograde foolish
idiocies ever. the fact that honda of all people are doing it just
makes me /puke/.

truth is, in modern high speed freeway traffic, a single flash of an
orange turn signal from the car two ahead of you [and therefore
partially obscured] tells you that the vehicle is maneuvering. a single
flash of red tells you squat. do you get ready to brake? do you start
braking and have the tail-gater behind you slam your ass? do you try
closing up in anticipation of the person ahead being able to accelerate
now their obstruction has gone? and all this in nose-to-tail 70+mph
commuter traffic? at night?

the "red lens" rules exist /only/ because it allows certain other
manufacturers to save the incremental cents on two extra cable runs, two
bulbs and a switch. on a 1930's turnip truck with zero traffic density.
today's grand total saving less than $5 per vehicle in volume. but
spread over 1M vehicles, that's a nice $5M saving. that gives $500k
bonus for the genius manager that thinks red lenses are "ok". $500k
bonus for the bean counter/legal team that does the math indicating that
no class action from the families of bereaved could ever match annual
savings, $500k for political, er, "grease" to ensure no embarrassing
questions ever get raised on the subject, and $3.5M to the bottom line
to an ailing company that survives only on the strength of it's
marketing team, not it's product quality? and honda jump on this
bandwagon like it's some sort of identity panacea? blows my mind.

Re: What's with red rear turn signal?
 

jim beam wrote:
> Dave Boland wrote:
>
>> I've noticed that Honda, and some other mfg'rs. are going with the
>> Detroit look and using red rear turn signals instead of the amber
>> color used for years. Any official word on what's going on? I don't
>> like it because amber seems to do a better job of catching attention
>> day and night.
>>
>> Dave,
>>
> red turn signals are one of the most dangerous retrograde foolish
> idiocies ever. the fact that honda of all people are doing it just
> makes me /puke/.
>
> truth is, in modern high speed freeway traffic, a single flash of an
> orange turn signal from the car two ahead of you [and therefore
> partially obscured] tells you that the vehicle is maneuvering. a single
> flash of red tells you squat. do you get ready to brake? do you start
> braking and have the tail-gater behind you slam your ass? do you try
> closing up in anticipation of the person ahead being able to accelerate
> now their obstruction has gone? and all this in nose-to-tail 70+mph
> commuter traffic? at night?
>
> the "red lens" rules exist /only/ because it allows certain other
> manufacturers to save the incremental cents on two extra cable runs, two
> bulbs and a switch. on a 1930's turnip truck with zero traffic density.
> today's grand total saving less than $5 per vehicle in volume. but
> spread over 1M vehicles, that's a nice $5M saving. that gives $500k
> bonus for the genius manager that thinks red lenses are "ok". $500k
> bonus for the bean counter/legal team that does the math indicating that
> no class action from the families of bereaved could ever match annual
> savings, $500k for political, er, "grease" to ensure no embarrassing
> questions ever get raised on the subject, and $3.5M to the bottom line
> to an ailing company that survives only on the strength of it's
> marketing team, not it's product quality? and honda jump on this
> bandwagon like it's some sort of identity panacea? blows my mind.
>

I guess my concerns are that if Honda, and perhaps other
manufacturers, want to cheapen the car in obvious ways, then"

1. What did they cheapen that I can't see, and that may be
more important?

2. If they want to follow the same business model as
Detroit, then why would anyone want to pay the thousands
extra for a Chevy or Ford wannabe?

3. Trying to raise prices and cut corners are one of the
milestones of a company's (or industry's) demise. What
seems to have happened is Detroit is going the way of the
buggy manufacturer, Japanese car manufacturers are becoming
the new Detroit, and (perhaps) the Korean manufacturers are
becoming what the Japanese were a few years ago.

I have owned Honda s since 1987, and Japanese since 1979.
It looks like time for a change. My guess is that Honda (if
my above analysis is correct) will see a drop in sales and
try to cut more corners to be cost competitive. Not at all
why we bought these cars, but that is the life of an industry.

Dave,

Re: What's with red rear turn signal?
 

Dave Boland wrote:
> I guess my concerns are that if Honda, and perhaps other manufacturers,
> want to cheapen the car in obvious ways, then"
>
> 1. What did they cheapen that I can't see, and that may be more important?

Oh, lots of things, Dave. Have you noticed that the relatively
inexpensive "waiter's corkscrews" are now no longer quite so
inexpensive, yet are made of metal that doesn't hold up to a
solidly-embedded cork? Ever bought a new blender and compared the motor
to your old one? I just did. The old one is solidly built; new one is
cheap plastic, and sounds and feels cheap. Same with the top, new one is
crap, old one is much better. Not Honda examples, but the problem
plagues all manufacturing that I've seen and I certainly would not
expect Honda to stand apart.

I look around and see all kinds of materials shaving. Manufacturers play
around until they achieve the absolute minimum amount of materials they
can get away with and still have the part work for long enough that it
makes it out of warranty. They save lots of money, but their products
last for shit and no really one notices--or if they notice, they don't
say anything.

I suspect it has something to do with the reduction in our attention
span created by poor educational training, the TV remote control, and
hyperlinked information. Many of us don't have a sense of history that
extends for more than a few years, if that. We do what we have to to
meet the bottom dollar, to meet the requirements of short-sighted,
stupid managers who're (even when they're not stupid) being forced to
produce and shave costs to compete with every other stupid company doing
the same. No regard for the future, and the fact that someone might want
to use Product X for more than a couple of years. It really is
disconcerting.

Re: What's with red rear turn signal?
 

Dave Boland wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> Dave Boland wrote:
>>
>>> I've noticed that Honda, and some other mfg'rs. are going with the
>>> Detroit look and using red rear turn signals instead of the amber
>>> color used for years. Any official word on what's going on? I don't
>>> like it because amber seems to do a better job of catching attention
>>> day and night.
>>>
>>> Dave,
>>>
>> red turn signals are one of the most dangerous retrograde foolish
>> idiocies ever. the fact that honda of all people are doing it just
>> makes me /puke/.
>>
>> truth is, in modern high speed freeway traffic, a single flash of an
>> orange turn signal from the car two ahead of you [and therefore
>> partially obscured] tells you that the vehicle is maneuvering. a
>> single flash of red tells you squat. do you get ready to brake? do
>> you start braking and have the tail-gater behind you slam your ass?
>> do you try closing up in anticipation of the person ahead being able
>> to accelerate now their obstruction has gone? and all this in
>> nose-to-tail 70+mph commuter traffic? at night?
>>
>> the "red lens" rules exist /only/ because it allows certain other
>> manufacturers to save the incremental cents on two extra cable runs,
>> two bulbs and a switch. on a 1930's turnip truck with zero traffic
>> density. today's grand total saving less than $5 per vehicle in
>> volume. but spread over 1M vehicles, that's a nice $5M saving. that
>> gives $500k bonus for the genius manager that thinks red lenses are
>> "ok". $500k bonus for the bean counter/legal team that does the math
>> indicating that no class action from the families of bereaved could
>> ever match annual savings, $500k for political, er, "grease" to ensure
>> no embarrassing questions ever get raised on the subject, and $3.5M to
>> the bottom line to an ailing company that survives only on the
>> strength of it's marketing team, not it's product quality? and honda
>> jump on this bandwagon like it's some sort of identity panacea? blows
>> my mind.
>>
>
> I guess my concerns are that if Honda, and perhaps other manufacturers,
> want to cheapen the car in obvious ways, then"
>
> 1. What did they cheapen that I can't see, and that may be more important?

the ridiculous thing with red-lensed hondas is that nothing is
cheapened!!! they still use the extra bulbs, wiring, switches, etc.
the /only/ thing different is the lens - and that's specific to the
north american market. they're copy-catting detroit, but they're not
even taking advantage of the cost savings!!! potential class action
exposure without even the offset??? it's one of the most ridiculous
"marketing" ideas i've ever seen. even bmw, just about the most
marketing-driven car company there is, won't touch red rear lenses.

current honda management have lost all touch with their customer base.

>
> 2. If they want to follow the same business model as Detroit, then why
> would anyone want to pay the thousands extra for a Chevy or Ford wannabe?
>
> 3. Trying to raise prices and cut corners are one of the milestones of
> a company's (or industry's) demise. What seems to have happened is
> Detroit is going the way of the buggy manufacturer, Japanese car
> manufacturers are becoming the new Detroit, and (perhaps) the Korean
> manufacturers are becoming what the Japanese were a few years ago.
>
> I have owned Honda s since 1987, and Japanese since 1979. It looks like
> time for a change. My guess is that Honda (if my above analysis is
> correct) will see a drop in sales and try to cut more corners to be cost
> competitive. Not at all why we bought these cars, but that is the life
> of an industry.
>
> Dave,
>

Re: What's with red rear turn signal?
 

Dave Boland wrote:

> I've noticed that Honda, and some other mfg'rs. are going with the
> Detroit look and using red rear turn signals instead of the amber
> color used for years. Any official word on what's going on? I don't
> like it because amber seems to do a better job of catching attention
> day and night.
>
> Dave,
>

Huh? The 2005 CRV has amber lamps in clear housings as rear turn signals.

Re: What's with red rear turn signal?
 

jim beam wrote:

<snip>

>> 1. What did they cheapen that I can't see, and that may be more
>> important?
>
> the ridiculous thing with red-lensed hondas is that nothing is
> cheapened!!! they still use the extra bulbs, wiring, switches, etc. the
> /only/ thing different is the lens - and that's specific to the north
> american market. they're copy-catting detroit, but they're not even
> taking advantage of the cost savings!!! potential class action exposure
> without even the offset???

Class action suit - on what charges? You can't simply say "Honda sux" in
a US court and hope to collect big bucks (I hope!).

Re: What's with red rear turn signal?
 

"Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote in message
news:18dHe.7150$6%2.1630@fe10.lga...
> jim beam wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> 1. What did they cheapen that I can't see, and that may be more
>>> important?
>>
>> the ridiculous thing with red-lensed hondas is that nothing is
>> cheapened!!! they still use the extra bulbs, wiring, switches, etc. the
>> /only/ thing different is the lens - and that's specific to the north
>> american market. they're copy-catting detroit, but they're not even
>> taking advantage of the cost savings!!! potential class action exposure
>> without even the offset???
>
> Class action suit - on what charges? You can't simply say "Honda sux" in a
> US court and hope to collect big bucks (I hope!).

I suspect the vehicles are legal for sale, and meet all applicable lighting
requirements.
No lawsuit there.

Re: What's with red rear turn signal?
 

Sparky Spartacus wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> 1. What did they cheapen that I can't see, and that may be more
>>> important?
>>
>>
>> the ridiculous thing with red-lensed hondas is that nothing is
>> cheapened!!! they still use the extra bulbs, wiring, switches, etc.
>> the /only/ thing different is the lens - and that's specific to the
>> north american market. they're copy-catting detroit, but they're not
>> even taking advantage of the cost savings!!! potential class action
>> exposure without even the offset???
>
>
> Class action suit - on what charges? You can't simply say "Honda sux" in
> a US court and hope to collect big bucks (I hope!).

of course not. but you can't tell me that a red turn signal that takes
two or three flashes to be distinguishable from a brake signal is as
safe as an orange turn signal that is distinguishable in a few
milliseconds. of course it's "legal". but the only reason it's "legal"
is because it would [financialy] "hurt" detroit to make the law reflect
the same safety standards used throughout the rest of the world.
consumer class actions have changed vehicle safety law in the past.
since 2000, honda is exposed if this were to happen - they never were
before.

Re: What's with red rear turn signal?
 

In article <m_UGe.687$0m1.218@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
NODARNSPAMdboland9@stny.rr.com says...

>I've noticed that Honda, and some other mfg'rs. are going
>with the Detroit look and using red rear turn signals
>instead of the amber color used for years. Any official
>word on what's going on? I don't like it because amber
>seems to do a better job of catching attention day and night.

Stupidity! An amber turn signal is unambiguous, something that can't
be said about red turn signals.
---------------
Alex

Re: What's with red rear turn signal?
 

In article <tq-dnVuOZKbe6HDfRVn-1Q@speakeasy.net>, nospam@example.net says...

>of course not. but you can't tell me that a red turn signal that takes
>two or three flashes to be distinguishable from a brake signal is as
>safe as an orange turn signal that is distinguishable in a few
>milliseconds. of course it's "legal". but the only reason it's "legal"
>is because it would [financialy] "hurt" detroit to make the law reflect
>the same safety standards used throughout the rest of the world.
>consumer class actions have changed vehicle safety law in the past.
>since 2000, honda is exposed if this were to happen - they never were
>before.

Honda would just make the argument that their lights meet the governement
standards, and they would win in court. So don't bitch at Honda. Let the
government know just how stupid their standards are. They might listen.
-------------
Alex

Re: What's with red rear turn signal?
 

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article <tq-dnVuOZKbe6HDfRVn-1Q@speakeasy.net>, nospam@example.net says...
>
>
>>of course not. but you can't tell me that a red turn signal that takes
>>two or three flashes to be distinguishable from a brake signal is as
>>safe as an orange turn signal that is distinguishable in a few
>>milliseconds. of course it's "legal". but the only reason it's "legal"
>>is because it would [financialy] "hurt" detroit to make the law reflect
>>the same safety standards used throughout the rest of the world.
>>consumer class actions have changed vehicle safety law in the past.
>>since 2000, honda is exposed if this were to happen - they never were
>>before.
>
>
> Honda would just make the argument that their lights meet the governement
> standards, and they would win in court. So don't bitch at Honda. Let the
> government know just how stupid their standards are. They might listen.
> -------------
> Alex
>
>
"They might listen." Only if you send them a pile of money,
like the car manufacturers due to get the rules bent their
way. Think FDA and how they keep forgetting to test this or
that and notify the consumer of this or that. Yes out
government is the best money can buy!

Dave,

Re: What's with red rear turn signal?
 

In article <zHtHe.10986$8y3.8341@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
NODARNSPAMdboland9@stny.rr.com says...

>"They might listen." Only if you send them a pile of money,
>like the car manufacturers due to get the rules bent their
>way. Think FDA and how they keep forgetting to test this or
>that and notify the consumer of this or that. Yes out
>government is the best money can buy!

If you mean drugs, the FDA does not test drugs. The drug companies test the
drugs themselves and then submit the results to the FDA to review.
--------------
Alex

Re: What's with red rear turn signal?
 

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article <tq-dnVuOZKbe6HDfRVn-1Q@speakeasy.net>, nospam@example.net says...
>
>
>>of course not. but you can't tell me that a red turn signal that takes
>>two or three flashes to be distinguishable from a brake signal is as
>>safe as an orange turn signal that is distinguishable in a few
>>milliseconds. of course it's "legal". but the only reason it's "legal"
>>is because it would [financialy] "hurt" detroit to make the law reflect
>>the same safety standards used throughout the rest of the world.
>>consumer class actions have changed vehicle safety law in the past.
>>since 2000, honda is exposed if this were to happen - they never were
>>before.
>
>
> Honda would just make the argument that their lights meet the governement
> standards, and they would win in court. So don't bitch at Honda. Let the
> government know just how stupid their standards are. They might listen.
> -------------
> Alex
>
>
like this?

http://dir.salon.com/bc/1999/01/26bc.html